The introduction points out that the Principate established by Augustus is usually treated as a benign and popular political structure, but that the case of M. Scribonius Drusus Libo throws doubt on ...
More

The introduction points out that the Principate established by Augustus is usually treated as a benign and popular political structure, but that the case of M. Scribonius Drusus Libo throws doubt on this view. The case is connected with the conspiracy of the pseudo Agrippa Postumus, (i.e. Clemens). Drusus Libo was chosen as heir to a political movement bent on denying Tiberius his right. Finally, the reader learns that the result of the book is a re-conception of the Principate: it was brutal, destructive and met with serious opposition.Less

Introduction

Andrew Pettinger

Published in print: 2012-05-24

The introduction points out that the Principate established by Augustus is usually treated as a benign and popular political structure, but that the case of M. Scribonius Drusus Libo throws doubt on this view. The case is connected with the conspiracy of the pseudo Agrippa Postumus, (i.e. Clemens). Drusus Libo was chosen as heir to a political movement bent on denying Tiberius his right. Finally, the reader learns that the result of the book is a re-conception of the Principate: it was brutal, destructive and met with serious opposition.

This work addresses the following question: What would be the consequence of allowing a representative of ancient Pyrrhonian scepticism to become a party to contemporary debates in theory of ...
More

This work addresses the following question: What would be the consequence of allowing a representative of ancient Pyrrhonian scepticism to become a party to contemporary debates in theory of knowledge? The conclusion of this work is that most of our contemporary epistemologists would fare badly in this encounter.Part 1 concerns the analysis of knowledge claims. It defends the almost universally rejected view that knowledge is simply justified true belief. This analysis is generally thought to be untenable because it yields skepticism or Gettier problems (or both). In response, it is argued that everyday knowledge claims are protected from both difficulties by placing limits on the level of scrutiny, that is, limits are placed on the range of possible defeators that are taken seriously. Conversely, when these constraints are set aside, as epistemologists often do, skepticism and Gettier problems understandably arise. Three chapters are dedicated to examining and criticizing alternative analyses of knowledge claims: various fourth‐clause analyses, externalist analyses, and subjunctive (possible‐world) analyses.Part 2 concerns theories of justification. It presents a confrontation between Agrippa's Five Modes Leading to the Suspension of Belief (as found in Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism) and three contemporary theories of justification: Chisholm's foundationalist theory, BonJour's internal coherentism, and Davidson's external coherentism. The conclusion of this examination is that none of these accounts of justification makes serious headway in responding to Agrippa's Five Modes.Less

Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification

Robert J. Fogelin

Published in print: 1994-12-01

This work addresses the following question: What would be the consequence of allowing a representative of ancient Pyrrhonian scepticism to become a party to contemporary debates in theory of knowledge? The conclusion of this work is that most of our contemporary epistemologists would fare badly in this encounter.

Part 1 concerns the analysis of knowledge claims. It defends the almost universally rejected view that knowledge is simply justified true belief. This analysis is generally thought to be untenable because it yields skepticism or Gettier problems (or both). In response, it is argued that everyday knowledge claims are protected from both difficulties by placing limits on the level of scrutiny, that is, limits are placed on the range of possible defeators that are taken seriously. Conversely, when these constraints are set aside, as epistemologists often do, skepticism and Gettier problems understandably arise. Three chapters are dedicated to examining and criticizing alternative analyses of knowledge claims: various fourth‐clause analyses, externalist analyses, and subjunctive (possible‐world) analyses.

Part 2 concerns theories of justification. It presents a confrontation between Agrippa's Five Modes Leading to the Suspension of Belief (as found in Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism) and three contemporary theories of justification: Chisholm's foundationalist theory, BonJour's internal coherentism, and Davidson's external coherentism. The conclusion of this examination is that none of these accounts of justification makes serious headway in responding to Agrippa's Five Modes.

The purpose in this chapter is not to cast doubt on Aristotle's dogmatic credentials, but rather focuses on a series of questions that seem to have gone largely unasked. How far is Aristotle aware of ...
More

The purpose in this chapter is not to cast doubt on Aristotle's dogmatic credentials, but rather focuses on a series of questions that seem to have gone largely unasked. How far is Aristotle aware of the sceptical challenge to knowledge, and how far does he attempt to answer it? How does he assess earlier Greek thinkers who have been regarded as forerunners of the official sceptics? How much, if at all, did his own work influence and anticipate the debates between sceptics and dogmatists that are charted in Cicero'sAcademicaand the writings of Sextus? It is argued that these questions are profitable lines of enquiry, and that Aristotle deserves more than the occasional footnote in histories of ancient scepticism.Less

Aristotle and the History of Greek Scepticism

A. A. Long

Published in print: 2006-09-14

The purpose in this chapter is not to cast doubt on Aristotle's dogmatic credentials, but rather focuses on a series of questions that seem to have gone largely unasked. How far is Aristotle aware of the sceptical challenge to knowledge, and how far does he attempt to answer it? How does he assess earlier Greek thinkers who have been regarded as forerunners of the official sceptics? How much, if at all, did his own work influence and anticipate the debates between sceptics and dogmatists that are charted in Cicero'sAcademicaand the writings of Sextus? It is argued that these questions are profitable lines of enquiry, and that Aristotle deserves more than the occasional footnote in histories of ancient scepticism.

This essay contrasts Descartes with three skeptical figures: the Doubting Pyrrhonist, the Agrippan Pyrrhonist, and the Cartesian Skeptic. It argues that the meditator in Descartes’s Meditations is ...
More

This essay contrasts Descartes with three skeptical figures: the Doubting Pyrrhonist, the Agrippan Pyrrhonist, and the Cartesian Skeptic. It argues that the meditator in Descartes’s Meditations is different from all three of these skeptics. Seeing the distinctive character of the meditator helps us understand how Descartes could have hoped to meet the challenge of skepticism.Less

Cartesian Skeptics

Janet Broughton

Published in print: 2004-08-12

This essay contrasts Descartes with three skeptical figures: the Doubting Pyrrhonist, the Agrippan Pyrrhonist, and the Cartesian Skeptic. It argues that the meditator in Descartes’s Meditations is different from all three of these skeptics. Seeing the distinctive character of the meditator helps us understand how Descartes could have hoped to meet the challenge of skepticism.

This essay reinterprets Berkeley’s idealism as partially motivated by a need to overcome the Agrippan mode of relativity pressed by Pyrrhonists. It compares Berkeley’s solution to that of Protagoras ...
More

This essay reinterprets Berkeley’s idealism as partially motivated by a need to overcome the Agrippan mode of relativity pressed by Pyrrhonists. It compares Berkeley’s solution to that of Protagoras as presented in Plato’s Theaetetus, and argues that Berkeley needed to depend on reason — intuition or demonstration — to avoid skepticism. In this interpretation, Berkeley is closer to the rationalist tradition than usually recognized.Less

Berkeley, Pyrrhonism, and the Theaetetus

Kenneth P. Winkler

Published in print: 2004-08-12

This essay reinterprets Berkeley’s idealism as partially motivated by a need to overcome the Agrippan mode of relativity pressed by Pyrrhonists. It compares Berkeley’s solution to that of Protagoras as presented in Plato’s Theaetetus, and argues that Berkeley needed to depend on reason — intuition or demonstration — to avoid skepticism. In this interpretation, Berkeley is closer to the rationalist tradition than usually recognized.

This chapter looks at Josephus’ literary career in Rome as part of a larger trend, which involved an increasing imperial interest in luring members of the foreign elite to the city within the context ...
More

This chapter looks at Josephus’ literary career in Rome as part of a larger trend, which involved an increasing imperial interest in luring members of the foreign elite to the city within the context of the patron-client relationship. Examples of such men were the Syrian Nicolaus of Damascus, court historian to King Herod the Great during the first century BCE, and Antiochus IV of Commagene, a client king who helped Vespasian’s forces in the Judean War of 66-73 CE. Similarly, this chapter argues that Josephus was closely enmeshed within the Roman elite because of his usefulness as a cultural mediator, a role which had both socio-political and strategic value. Roman interest in the stability of the eastern frontier of the Empire meant an increasing interest in its resident cultures. Josephus’ role was realized through his production of a ‘new kind of historiography’ never before seen at Rome, which portrayed Roman values within the context of Judean history and vice-versa.Less

Foreign Elites at Rome

G. W. Bowersock

Published in print: 2005-05-19

This chapter looks at Josephus’ literary career in Rome as part of a larger trend, which involved an increasing imperial interest in luring members of the foreign elite to the city within the context of the patron-client relationship. Examples of such men were the Syrian Nicolaus of Damascus, court historian to King Herod the Great during the first century BCE, and Antiochus IV of Commagene, a client king who helped Vespasian’s forces in the Judean War of 66-73 CE. Similarly, this chapter argues that Josephus was closely enmeshed within the Roman elite because of his usefulness as a cultural mediator, a role which had both socio-political and strategic value. Roman interest in the stability of the eastern frontier of the Empire meant an increasing interest in its resident cultures. Josephus’ role was realized through his production of a ‘new kind of historiography’ never before seen at Rome, which portrayed Roman values within the context of Judean history and vice-versa.

Focusing on the political relationship between Judaea and Rome, this chapter examines why Agrippa II, a staunch ally of Vespasian and Titus during the Great Revolt, was never rewarded with the ...
More

Focusing on the political relationship between Judaea and Rome, this chapter examines why Agrippa II, a staunch ally of Vespasian and Titus during the Great Revolt, was never rewarded with the kingship of Judea. The answer to this question, according to Schwartz, lies in the Flavian portrayal of Judaea as a conquered territory. This was illustrated by Vespasian’s coinage featuring the legend Iudaea capta. This chapter argues that ‘Judaea’ ceased to be an official designation and its territory started to be referred to as ‘Idumaea’ or ‘Palaestina’. It then weighs in on the debate over translating Iudaeus as ‘Judean’ or as ‘Jew’. In his view, while Graeco-Roman usage originally designated an ethnicity connected with a geographical region (as in ‘Judean’), the word took on a broader meaning (‘Jew’) when the Judean Diaspora started to grow; Judaean religious attributes became the most distinctive marker of their cultural uniqueness.Less

Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome

Daniel R. Schwartz

Published in print: 2005-05-19

Focusing on the political relationship between Judaea and Rome, this chapter examines why Agrippa II, a staunch ally of Vespasian and Titus during the Great Revolt, was never rewarded with the kingship of Judea. The answer to this question, according to Schwartz, lies in the Flavian portrayal of Judaea as a conquered territory. This was illustrated by Vespasian’s coinage featuring the legend Iudaea capta. This chapter argues that ‘Judaea’ ceased to be an official designation and its territory started to be referred to as ‘Idumaea’ or ‘Palaestina’. It then weighs in on the debate over translating Iudaeus as ‘Judean’ or as ‘Jew’. In his view, while Graeco-Roman usage originally designated an ethnicity connected with a geographical region (as in ‘Judean’), the word took on a broader meaning (‘Jew’) when the Judean Diaspora started to grow; Judaean religious attributes became the most distinctive marker of their cultural uniqueness.

From 63 BC until the Jewish War of 66, Israel was under Rome’s control. Following the deposition of Herod’s son Archelaus in AD 6, there were two phases. From 6 to 39 there was direct Roman rule of ...
More

From 63 BC until the Jewish War of 66, Israel was under Rome’s control. Following the deposition of Herod’s son Archelaus in AD 6, there were two phases. From 6 to 39 there was direct Roman rule of Judea, while Galilee continued under Herod’s son Herod Antipas. From 44 to 66 there was direct Roman rule of Galilee and Judea. The two phases were separated by a brief period of united rule from 41 to 44 under Agrippa I, Herod the Great’s grandson. Throughout the period, there were disturbances and protests, but their extent and significance is impossible to estimate. Among possible Jewish attitudes to foreign imperium we may note: (1) acceptance of Roman rule, (2) acceptance of Roman rule, with willingness on occasion to question non-violently its actions, (3) non-violent rejection of Roman rule, and (4) violent rejection of Roman rule. Following the war of 132–135 the rabbis maintained the second option, insisting that in all things not directly contravening God’s law, the empire’s laws must be obeyed.Less

Israel and Empire : From the Maccabees to the War against Rome

Christopher Bryan

Published in print: 2005-07-01

From 63 BC until the Jewish War of 66, Israel was under Rome’s control. Following the deposition of Herod’s son Archelaus in AD 6, there were two phases. From 6 to 39 there was direct Roman rule of Judea, while Galilee continued under Herod’s son Herod Antipas. From 44 to 66 there was direct Roman rule of Galilee and Judea. The two phases were separated by a brief period of united rule from 41 to 44 under Agrippa I, Herod the Great’s grandson. Throughout the period, there were disturbances and protests, but their extent and significance is impossible to estimate. Among possible Jewish attitudes to foreign imperium we may note: (1) acceptance of Roman rule, (2) acceptance of Roman rule, with willingness on occasion to question non-violently its actions, (3) non-violent rejection of Roman rule, and (4) violent rejection of Roman rule. Following the war of 132–135 the rabbis maintained the second option, insisting that in all things not directly contravening God’s law, the empire’s laws must be obeyed.

M. Scribonius Drusus Libo has always been considered an inexplicable victim of predatory prosecutors, destroyed in the changed conditions of Tiberius’ succession to the founder of the Principate. ...
More

M. Scribonius Drusus Libo has always been considered an inexplicable victim of predatory prosecutors, destroyed in the changed conditions of Tiberius’ succession to the founder of the Principate. This is wrong. Drusus Libo conspired with a group of Tiberius’ opponents to challenge Tiberius’ right. The senate’s investigation of Drusus Libo will be examined in Chapter One and Chapter Two. It will be shown that Drusus Libo was treated in a way reminiscent of Catiline’s associate P. Lentulus Sura in 63 BC. Drusus Libo’s collaborators are then identified as a group of persons who supported first Gaius Caesar, then L. Aemilius Paullus and finally Agrippa Postumus. It is argued that the relationship of this group to Tiberius was beyond repair long before he succeeded Augustus. Tiberius’ succession to the supreme power in AD 14 signalled, therefore, a decisive defeat for this group. The succession is thus reconsidered from a new point of view: it was by no means sewn up. Drusus Libo is central to our understanding of Tiberius’ behaviour at this time. This is what the book examines in detail. A new historical model for the years 6 BC to AD 16 is offered, which has repercussions for the study of both the preceding and subsequent periods. The book is therefore a contribution to the study of the invention of the Principate at Rome.Less

The Republic in Danger : Drusus Libo and the Succession of Tiberius

Andrew Pettinger

Published in print: 2012-05-24

M. Scribonius Drusus Libo has always been considered an inexplicable victim of predatory prosecutors, destroyed in the changed conditions of Tiberius’ succession to the founder of the Principate. This is wrong. Drusus Libo conspired with a group of Tiberius’ opponents to challenge Tiberius’ right. The senate’s investigation of Drusus Libo will be examined in Chapter One and Chapter Two. It will be shown that Drusus Libo was treated in a way reminiscent of Catiline’s associate P. Lentulus Sura in 63 BC. Drusus Libo’s collaborators are then identified as a group of persons who supported first Gaius Caesar, then L. Aemilius Paullus and finally Agrippa Postumus. It is argued that the relationship of this group to Tiberius was beyond repair long before he succeeded Augustus. Tiberius’ succession to the supreme power in AD 14 signalled, therefore, a decisive defeat for this group. The succession is thus reconsidered from a new point of view: it was by no means sewn up. Drusus Libo is central to our understanding of Tiberius’ behaviour at this time. This is what the book examines in detail. A new historical model for the years 6 BC to AD 16 is offered, which has repercussions for the study of both the preceding and subsequent periods. The book is therefore a contribution to the study of the invention of the Principate at Rome.

Chapter nine investigates Tiberius’ famous reluctance to accept supreme power. Evidence is presented to show that, when Augustus died, Tiberius was in control and his position as ruler beyond ...
More

Chapter nine investigates Tiberius’ famous reluctance to accept supreme power. Evidence is presented to show that, when Augustus died, Tiberius was in control and his position as ruler beyond question. Reluctance was not, therefore, due to a lack of legal power/s. The chapter points out that Tiberius did not accept the supreme power, as is often supposed, at the senate meeting of September 17 AD 14, but rather, ceased to deny his right. No positive statement was however forthcoming: the question was left up in the air. The prevailing modern views do not provide adequate answers. Tiberius was not sincere, nor did he feign reluctance for decency’s sake. As Suetonius wrote, Tiberius was distressed by the unfolding of real political events: Agrippa’s death, legions in mutiny, and Drusus Libo.Less

The Hesitation of Tiberius

Andrew Pettinger

Published in print: 2012-05-24

Chapter nine investigates Tiberius’ famous reluctance to accept supreme power. Evidence is presented to show that, when Augustus died, Tiberius was in control and his position as ruler beyond question. Reluctance was not, therefore, due to a lack of legal power/s. The chapter points out that Tiberius did not accept the supreme power, as is often supposed, at the senate meeting of September 17 AD 14, but rather, ceased to deny his right. No positive statement was however forthcoming: the question was left up in the air. The prevailing modern views do not provide adequate answers. Tiberius was not sincere, nor did he feign reluctance for decency’s sake. As Suetonius wrote, Tiberius was distressed by the unfolding of real political events: Agrippa’s death, legions in mutiny, and Drusus Libo.